The axiom that “No one on their deathbed ever said, ‘I wish I’d spent more time at work,’” is often attributed to 92-year-old Massachusetts native Arnold Zack. While he denies being its original source, the longtime arbitrator of labor management disputes chose to retire two years ago for a couple of reasons. One was his fear that between a hearing and writing an opinion, he might die, “creating an avoidable problem for the parties.” Another, he says, was that “I could...err in my recollection of what was said at a hearing, or issue a binding decision that might be challengeable as unreasonable or just plain wrong.”
Given that we all age differently, I was never comfortable with the one-size-fits-all approach of an arbitrary retirement age. But watching the first presidential debate in June, I found myself wishing there was a mandatory age for our head of state.
Listening to both men made me wonder whether I would want an 80-year-old physician performing brain surgery on me, or how comfortable I’d be driving on the highway next to a tanker truck operated by someone in their 90s. These professions have no age limits. I began to think about the idea of federal judges—including Supreme Court justices—being appointed for life.
In 1986, Congress passed legislation that amended the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to ban mandatory retirement based on age for most workers. The exceptions, primarily occupations with a public safety component, include air traffic controllers, who must retire at 56, pilots for commercial airlines (65), and FBI special agents and Secret Service (57).
Nine days before President Biden withdrew from the race, Globe columnist Scott Lehigh asked his readers what they thought the incumbent should do. That nearly three-quarters of the 955 respondents urged Biden to exit might have been less surprising than who the most vociferous respondents were. “Most people who responded were older,” Lehigh tells me, “and the older they were, the stronger most felt that Biden shouldn’t run again.” Perhaps seeing the president stumble reminded them of their own mental acuity or physical limitations.
Following the debate, calls grew for Biden to take a cognitive test. Trump, meanwhile, claimed he was “cognitively better now” than two decades ago. (However, an analysis by STAT, the health and medicine news site with the same corporate owner as the Globe, noted that “certain shifts in [Trump’s] speaking style are potential indications of cognitive decline.”) I wondered if there were any reliable test that could accurately determine an individual’s “neurological age” or whether it would be possible for a 78-year-old to demonstrate that they have the mind of a 58-year-old.
Is the rate of cognitive decline in most individuals significant enough that more professions should have a mandatory retirement age? Or should decisions be made on a case-by-case basis?
“These are great questions, but largely we don’t have answers,” says Dr. Bradley Hyman, who directs the Alzheimer’s disease research unit at the MassGeneral Institute for Neurodegenerative Disease.
Until we learn more, the idea of a universal mandatory retirement age for all but a few select professions seems arbitrary and discriminatory. For most jobs, I believe that those of us over 50 are not only suitable—often, we offer experience that makes us especially qualified.
This matters because of the growing number of older workers. According to a Pew survey, roughly 1 in 5 Americans 65 and older were employed in 2023— nearly double the number of those who were working 35 years ago. And a NerdWallet survey showed that 10 percent of Americans say they’ll never retire, some out of financial necessity, but many simply because they don’t want to. Yet research shows that age discrimination persists for older Americans in the job market.
Alicia Munnell thinks she knows why. Now 82, Munnell has been director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College for more than a quarter century. The idea of mandatory retirement, she says, is framed “almost as a civil rights issue so most people are glad it has been eliminated.”
She has found, however, that employers are often reluctant to consider older workers, fearing if they become less productive, the process of removing them would be burdensome. Paradoxically, Munnell suggests the solution might be to re-institute a uniform retirement age. “I think if there were a mandatory retirement age and the employer knew that at some age, it would be possible to end the relationship without any repercussions, that that would actually make employers more willing to hire older workers,” she says.
Whatever my expiration date, I plan to be working when it comes. So, the notion of a mandatory retirement age, to me, remains anathema. Yet if I were in a profession where my cognitive decline might put others at risk, I’d be glad to have a defined end date to keep the decision out of my hands.
Arnold Zack tells of two giants in his field who agreed “to tell the other when they thought they were beginning to lose it.” Short of pacts like these, perhaps some of us need a little push.
Andy Levinsky is a frequent contributor to the Globe Magazine. Send comments to magazine@globe.com.